Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

325 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

An ounce of prevention (4, Insightful)

suso (153703) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929276)

Interesting article. Unfortunately since most companies never wise up about security, its probably in the companies best interest to recognize the needs of IT workers instead of being even more paranoid about them. I used to work as a system administrator at a company where most of us where disgruntled due to the lack of progress of the company and poor leadership, then things got worse when the new owner of the company stopped trusting the admins for no good reason. This created a situation where long time employees started taking the attitude of "This company wouldn't survive for a month without me here". Amazingly, companies like this do survive the departure of their best employees.

Re:An ounce of prevention (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17929470)

you will never make it to upper management as long as you think that way.

your company's people are to be EXPLOITED. you need to exploit them as hard as possible.. IT espically, they are a dime a dozen andthere is 6 of them out there waiting to take the one job.

Who cares if they are disgruntled... I got a new company BMW 7 series for my 1st quarter bonus~

Re:An ounce of prevention (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17929644)

Who cares if they are disgruntled... I got a new company BMW 7 series for my 1st quarter bonus~
Does your company give out a "sociopathic manager of the year" award, too?

Don't worry. I guarantee you'll regret being such an jerk to people when you're passing middle age and you've got mountains of "stuff" to your name but not a real friend in the world.

Re:An ounce of prevention (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17929836)

Trust me, its better to have no friends and lots of stuff, than friends and no stuff. In general if you don't have a job, friends don't help much, other than give excuses to get away from you, but if you have stuff, you WILL make friends.

Re:An ounce of prevention (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17929918)

LOL!!!! Grand parent and parent are pissfunny!

Re:An ounce of prevention (1)

suso (153703) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930070)

but if you have stuff, you WILL make friends.

But as the grandparent said, not a real friend.

Re:An ounce of prevention (5, Insightful)

qzulla (600807) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929614)

Survive or become successful? A major difference.

qz

Re:An ounce of prevention (5, Insightful)

bladesjester (774793) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929664)

The following exerpt from the article is pretty telling:
Macleod concluded: "So as far as doing the right thing, I'd suggest that you start from the basis that your IT staff are the biggest risk to your organization's security, and if anyone of them disputes this, remember that arguing with colleagues was one of the clear signs of an impending attack."

Basically, if management accuses IT of being a huge risk, and their IT staff is actually honest and dependable, should they stand up for themselves, that's a sign that you should trust them even less??

Give me a freaking break.

Re:An ounce of prevention (3, Insightful)

tacocat (527354) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929692)

This is bunk.

How many disgruntled Automotive Industries went on a shooting spree and NEVER gave any signs? Most. Same for the classic Postal Workers...

And what about the guy in Office Space?

Re:An ounce of prevention (1)

suso (153703) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929730)

And what about the guy in Office Space?

Oh come on, that company must have sent out about a million memos.

Re:An ounce of prevention (4, Interesting)

maetenloch (181291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930238)

This is bunk. How many disgruntled Automotive Industries went on a shooting spree and NEVER gave any signs? Most. Same for the classic Postal Workers... And what about the guy in Office Space?
Actually when they've investigated, it turns almost every disgruntled shooter DID give signs beforehand. It was just that most co-workers, manager, and neighbors ignored the signs or were clueless that they were significant. People almost never just 'snap' and become violent - usually there's a predictable series of escalating steps that they go through before that point. There's an excellent book, "The Gift of Fear" by Gavin De Becker, that goes into how to predict who will become violent at work. One of his main points is that when we find someone 'creepy', it's actually an early warning system that they're likely to be a danger. However due to social conditioning, people usually ignore their gut feelings which is a mistake. He also helped develop the model that the Secret Service uses to decide whether people who have made threats are probably harmless or likely to eventually commit violence.

Re:An ounce of prevention (4, Interesting)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929752)

You should assume witches are the biggest risk to your organizational security.

If any of the witches in your organization denies being a witch, remember that arguing with colleagues about it is one of the clear signs of impending witchcraft.

Re:An ounce of prevention (1)

bladesjester (774793) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929766)

I'm Taoist. Does that count? =]

Don't start in on blade weilding maniacs either. I've trained martially since I was a kid :P

Thankfully I seem to be a relatively well adjusted individual.

Mandatory Holy Grail (4, Funny)

Critical Facilities (850111) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929822)

BEDEVERE:
Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.

VILLAGER #1:
Are there?
VILLAGER #2:
Ah?
VILLAGER #1:
What are they?
CROWD:
Tell us! Tell us!...
BEDEVERE:
Tell me. What do you do with witches?
VILLAGER #2:
Burn!
VILLAGER #1:
Burn!
CROWD:
Burn! Burn them up! Burn!...
BEDEVERE:
And what do you burn apart from witches?
VILLAGER #1:
More witches!

Re:An ounce of prevention (1)

inphorm (604192) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929762)

And some companies don't. I was in a certain company, that will remain unnamed, they treated their IT staff really crap, paid really crap, put closed circuit cameras pointed at the IT staff, not the servers and generally accused us for everything that went wrong in the company. No surprise there was a really high turn over of staff.

The day I finally gave in and resigned (14 months after starting there) the Network Admin and Systems Admin both resigned too. We did nothing to sabotage anything, the company went broke about a month after we left, the people who came in and bought it are still trying to pick up the pieces a year later.

- paul

http://www.paulpichugin.com.au/ [paulpichugin.com.au]

Blindingly Obvious Research Concludes Blindingly O (2, Funny)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929280)

I think that this 'study' needs to be included on this list [popsci.com] .

Re:Blindingly Obvious Research Concludes Blindingl (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929404)

Careful, making cynical comments like that may negatively affect your career prospects. Don't want to get labled as a whiner, people might think your planning to nuke the servers and fire you. Oh wait.

Re:Blindingly Obvious Research Concludes Blindingl (1)

daeg (828071) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929570)

Only someone on the verge of committing such acts would even think of them. Just what are you planning, Hal_Porter?

Re:Blindingly Obvious Research Concludes Blindingl (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929690)

You know, after I left my old department I instructed the manager to assign a new local admin, and to have that person remove my access to the NetApp and server.
Two years later I get to thinking how I never got an e-mail from anyone...
log into the server and presto! access. Well, I think, maybe they left my user rights because I have a homedir there... Nope! I can still access admin and privileged functions. I have to admit that the thought occoured to me to drop the ACL for everyone and claim ignorance, or even better subtly change all their data and bury the logs...

didn't do it, but I did indulge in a daydream about it :-)
-nB

Oh so true. (2, Funny)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930232)

Careful, making cynical comments like that may negatively affect your career prospects. Don't want to get labled as a whiner, people might think your planning to nuke the servers and fire you.

Especially if your bosses who are disgruntled, paranoid, generally show up late, argue with colleagues, and generally perform poorly.

Oh no!

This story really needs to be filed under, "The best way to improve moral is to fire all the unhappy people."

obligatory (5, Funny)

User 956 (568564) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929288)

workers who sabotage corporate systems are almost always IT workers who are disgruntled, paranoid, generally show up late, argue with colleagues, and generally perform poorly.

Maybe they just want their red stapler back.

Re:obligatory (1)

Cheapy (809643) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929446)

You sir, win the award for Best /. Post Ever.

Re:obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17929530)

Not me, I sabotage for the lulz

obligatory 2: Monkey Boy. (1)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930198)

They also sweat profusely throw chairs.

You are so fired, Joe... (2, Funny)

aborchers (471342) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929290)

So fired...

Access (4, Interesting)

Prysorra (1040518) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929292)

*Cough* IT people are also likely to know *how* to properly sabotage computers for the maximum effect....

Re:Access (4, Insightful)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929378)

as opposed to the armies of users that "sabotage" the desktops and network resources on a daily basis?

sure... the IT guys are the problem.

Re:Access (4, Interesting)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930158)

the users fuck up one computer, or maybe even introduce a virus to their office, a malicious IT worker could be quietly poisoning backup tapes for months, or better yet, configure the backup and restore system to use encryption reading the key off a USB key plugged into the back of the machine, when he quits he takes the usb key, or wipes it, and all that data becomes a pile of useless bits

Re:Access (1)

qzulla (600807) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929750)

I left a job over "unfortunate circumstances." I never looked back. Jail time is not my bag. Six months severance with all benefits was ok with me but looking back if I had the money I would have sued. I needed the money but lost my house anyway.

I did not sabotage the 'puter. I don't like the idea of doing jail time over a few missed passwords.

Whatever. I did score in the end. A better job with more pay and am I advancing on schedule.

qz

Security huh! (2, Funny)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929832)

I got pissed off with what someone said so I deleted that blue 'e' on my computer. Now the whole internet has been destroyed.

GDisk -dodwipe (1)

belligerent0001 (966585) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929908)

Gdisk -dodwipe is a beautiful thing....

In related news (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929294)

There has been certain studies linking the existence of certain celestrial bodies to the general lux levels observed on the planet during what people would refer to as 'day'.

No way! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17929312)

I think what this article is saying is that they're not laymen who are satisfied, confident, punctual, amiable, and good workers.

Re:No way! (2, Interesting)

ToasterMonkey (467067) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929596)

No, it says...

The research suggests that potential troublemakers should be easy to spot. Nearly all the cases of cybercrime investigated were carried out by people who were "disgruntled, paranoid, generally show up late, argue with colleagues, and generally perform poorly."
How exactly does that make these people easy to spot? What distinguishes them from anyone else fired from an IT position?
This article stinks.

Macleod concluded: "So as far as doing the right thing, I'd suggest that you start from the basis that your IT staff are the biggest risk to your organization's security, and if anyone of them disputes this, remember that arguing with colleagues was one of the clear signs of an impending attack.
I wouldn't recommend taking that attitude with ANY branch of your organization unless you're looking for a fight. Oh no! I might be one of them!

Re:No way! (1)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929912)

Absolutely. I think the article fails to distinguish between an intellectual argument and an inappropriate argument. Good intellectual arguments should be made because alternative ideas are flushed out and mistakes can be mitigated. An inappropriate argument is something that turns threatening and ominous. I like a good intellectual argument because it helps me learn more about the subject matter and it is a chance to contribute. An intellectual argument isn't necessarily about winning or loosing but about bringing up points to improve ideas. An intellectual argument is more of a discussion.

Bias? (2, Funny)

TheSuperlative (897959) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929326)

Let's see... the study shows that people who are fired generally are considered by their employers to have performed poorly...

This is groundbreaking!

Pop psych bull setting up suits for major disaster (5, Insightful)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930082)

Let's see... the study shows that people who are fired generally are considered by their employers to have performed poorly...

This is groundbreaking!


And while we're at it: How many employees who do NOT sabotage corporate systems "are disgruntled", "are paranoid", "generally show up late", and/or "argue with colleagues"?

Last time I looked:

  - A large fraction of the best IT people often work late, for any or all of several reasons: They prefer it, they need to work when load is light to minimize impact on business processes, fixing what the users broke during the day skews the time of their peak workload to later than that of the mainstream users, etc.

They often work more than a normal workday - but they'd have to work two shifts every day and only take time out for sleep, in order to come in bright and early to impress the suits who read this "study". But any sane IT professional will take advantage of flex time and come in late instead.

Programmers and other IT professionals coming in late has been a stereotype since computers used vacuum tubes. (I know because I was there and was one of many who created it. B-) )

  - "Argue with colleagues"? Maybe yes-maning works in the executive suite. But when a crew of experts is chasing down a problem there will be a slew of hypotheses tried and discarded, with different workers coming up with different hypotheses and evidence to falsify them. To an outsider this looks like an argument, when it's actually progress. Experts will also often have differing opinions and will discuss them - ditto.

(I recall one company where upper-level executives quietly added themselves to an engineering internal mailing list. There we discussed the latest problems - often heatedly - until they were solved. When one was solved the traffic on THAT problem stopped cold and another would take its place. To the suits it looked like a disaster, when in fact the project was on time, within budget, exceeding targets, and still looked like it would have been a quantum leap when delivered - if the company hadn't suddenly shut it down...)

- "disgruntled"? With the continuing budget shortfalls, IT resource expansion always lagging company growth, lusers opening virus email, ... I have yet to meet a "gruntled" IT professional.

- "paranoid"? (I presume we're talking the folk etymology, not clinical paranoia.) IT, like other forms of engineering, is an exercise in staying at least one step ahead of Murphy's Law. If an IT professional isn't "paranoid" he's not doing his job.

Watch the suits who saw this start canning their best IT people - zero-notice style. (That's where the employee arrives at work to find his cardkey doesn't work his passwords are rescinded, and he is escorted to HR where he is handed two weeks pay in lieu of notice, a box containing anything from his desk that the company didn't think was theirs, and a threatening document in lawyerese, and then kicked out of the building.)

And of course the fired employees will be blamed when the network starts to go to hell when the remaining people can't apply duct tape and chewing gum fast enough or the next rash of malware gets past the firewall.

= = = =

This reminds me of the "profiles" of school-age mass-murderers: They're always described as loners and introverts who don't get along with others in their school. In other words, just like all the nerds who get pounded on by the jocks and snubbed by the cheerleaders and queen-bees and react by withdrawing from contact with the "beautiful people" cliques. And every time one of these "studies" come out the administrators (generally former "beautiful people" themselves) dump on the nerds and side with the jocks that much more...

Straight from the "No sh*t Sherlock" Department: (5, Funny)

All_One_Mind (945389) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929338)

Wow. That's odd. I would've figured IT workers who sabotage corporate systems would be the workers who are happy, secure, generally show up on time, work well with colleagues, and generally perform superbly. Goes to show you that logic doesn't always pay off. (I'm ready for the Troll/Flamebait mod guys :)

Re:Straight from the "No sh*t Sherlock" Department (5, Interesting)

Panaflex (13191) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929562)

Well, I think those are just symptoms of some nasty disease. If you've got people like that onboard - it's important to find out the causes and do what can be done to improve their workday.

I had a boss at (insert large corporation) who disrespected me, never allowed me to be challenged, set me up on a doomed project on my second week of work with people who didn't understand the business - and generally pissed me off. I was cussed out by the CIO and his Italian mobster friend who claimed to be a business manager.

After the second month I would have fit into most of those categories - simply because of the experience I'd had. I decided that my boss didn't deserve anything other than what was in my job description. I proceeded to immerse myself in the codebase, business, and financials. After a couple of months I was answering questions in meetings which the original developers didn't even know.

There on out, I involved myself in other projects, got involved in design and generally worked my way past my boss - though he was still my boss until he was layed off.

In the end, I was one of the architects. All the people who made my life miserable were fired, left, or otherwise shown the door. They caused millions of dollars in losses - and I made the company millions.

Moral of the story: Sometimes it's management.

Re:Straight from the "No sh*t Sherlock" Department (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929772)

Your story somewhat reminds me of a businessweek article (from a month or three ago) about revenge in the workplace & how it drove some very high level achievers to retaliate by succeeding.

Those people (you) aren't the kind of person that TFA is describing.

The point of TFA is that there is a certain subset of people whose psychology will push them to become aggressively hostile to their employer in response to the types of pressure that you faced.

Re:Straight from the "No sh*t Sherlock" Department (1)

vbwyrde (1047816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930030)

Superior attitude! I commend you. You are among those who provide value by working around problems with the goal of doing the right thing for your employer in mind. And why should you not have that attitude? It is normal. After all, whenever we work for an employer we make a contract with them that we will provide services in exchange for money. It is our duty to honor that contract by providing the best work we can while we are there. And if we don't like it because we feel that the management or conditions render the situation unworkable, we have, thank God, the right, in this country anyway (America), to find another job, or better yet, start our own businesses. I feel the same way, and also provide value to my employer, despite the Dilbertization of the enterprise over the years. I'm a fan of 'The Tao of Programming'. Thank you for raising this perspective to our attention. Carry on.

indeed... here is yet another anecdote (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17930060)

As a sysadmin/webmaster at a small company I was involved in the infrastructure and in daily stuff that made money, like doing websites for the company's customers.

At one point I was drawn into an "argument" with colleagues over two things:

1) they needed a new box to run the firewall on. Owners wanted to postpone indefinitely. Sysadmin pressed his point. CEO suspected sabotage or other agenda... in spite of having had a prior avoidable firewall failure take down the network. He decided the sysadmin was crying wolf, or worse.

2): graphic designers and marketing people had proposed, priced and designed a website concept without consulting the guy who was going to code it. There were problems in the executability of the design and an underbid situation.

A technical problem that could be solved with a technical approach, if there were trust. Once again, sysadmin/webmaster "argued" for another approach on technical grounds. Answer: defenses, emotionalism, circle the wagons.

Net result of both contentions: emotionalism, accusations; sysadmin forced to resign.

The firewall did have a hardware failure after about six months; the website proposal flopped and the company lost their major client's web work. Satisfaction for the sysadmin? H**l no. There are no winners in something like this. You need to work with people you can trust and who trust you. This untrusted crap is destroying the very idea of "a good job" and consuming businesses and relationships from within.

You have to be able to air the relative merits of various technical approaches in a respectful, professional way so that what's rational and feasible emerges.

If this is "arguing with colleagues", resulting in an immediate security red-flag and dismissal... how can you have peer review or objective discussions? Worse still, it means we've descended into a totalitarian workplace.

Re:Straight from the "No sh*t Sherlock" Department (1)

susano_otter (123650) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929638)

Yeah, but on the other hand, I match this profile, but have no interest in sabotaging the company. I already get to come in late, bitch at my co-workers, and perform poorly, and get paid well for the privilege. Why would I want to ruin a good thing by committing crimes?

Re:Straight from the "No sh*t Sherlock" Department (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17930080)

Parent is disagreeing with the guy quoted in the article. According to the article, this argumentativeness makes the parent poster a prime suspect!

Sheesh, and believing that you aren't an alcoholic proves that you *are* an alcoholic, too.

The article is just an advertisement for a "privileged password management" product. If your IT staff say this isn't a problem, then it's REALLY a problem!! If you don't have our product yet, it may ALREADY BE TOO LATE!!!

Well, all that may be true... (5, Funny)

varmint jerky (810306) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929344)

but I also happen to be far too lazy to do any of that shit.

Re:Well, all that may be true... (1)

Architect_sasyr (938685) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929534)

Besides which, I spent too much time building the damned thing to the point it is at... the only destruction I'm doing when I leave is going to be taking a cattle prod to a few users. The BOFH is my God...

Link? (1)

adambha (1048538) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929362)

IT workers who are disgruntled, paranoid, generally show up late, argue with colleagues, and generally perform poorly

Doesn't it make sense that these would be the people who would "sabotage corporate systems"? Let see, they work with corporate systems and know a lot about them. And by that criteria, are not very happy.

Who else would you expect?

Really? (1)

agent dero (680753) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929364)

Angry workers more likely to sabotage systems...

News at elev...whenever I feel like it, get off my back!

That sounds like American Mgt (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17929370)

>>who are disgruntled, paranoid, generally show up late, argue with colleagues, and generally perform poorly

WTF!!!

Thats sounds exactly like the CEOs/executives at the last few places I've worked. When in doubt, always blame the little people, same as it ever was.

Tamping down management paranoia (2, Insightful)

ewg (158266) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929418)

I think the point of this study is that management doesn't have to be paranoid about normal IT people abusing the trust the organization has placed in them. The people truly likely to cause harm will broadcast that fact clearly in advance through egregious behavior.

Re:Tamping down management paranoia (1)

bladesjester (774793) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929472)

The thing is that, in a lot of cases, it's a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Management is paranoid that the IT people are going to sabatoge them, so they turn the screws on IT. The people in IT become demoralized, shart showing up late, are disgruntled, more likely to snap at management, etc. Eventually one of them may snap and sabatoge the place on their way out.

The real problem, in a lot of cases, starts out with paranoia and territorial pissing matches to see who controls the budget for what and who can make their kingdom more important. Unfortunately, that is a game that a lot of managers seem to want to play.

Re:Tamping down management paranoia (1)

twiddlingbits (707452) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929582)

There are no normal IT people. We are all "special", and DON"T YOU FORGET THAT !! ;) Management doesn't really trust IT a lot because they don't understand what IT does, and that's partly our fault for not explaining our job to them in terms they can grasp.

Anyone who broadcasts they are going to cause harm is quite stupid because when harm occurs they get the blame, even if they didn't do it. Perfect cover for the guy who really did the dirty deed.

half sight (5, Funny)

glas_gow (961896) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929426)

If they'd turned up on time, were cordial with their colleagues and performed better, they'd never have been caught.

Re:half sight (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929458)

If they'd turned up on time, were cordial with their colleagues and performed better, they'd never have been caught.

If they were like that, they probably wouldn't have gone into IT...

Yeah, so? (5, Funny)

LibertineR (591918) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929476)

"almost always IT workers who are disgruntled, paranoid, generally show up late, argue with colleagues, and generally perform poorly."

Disgrutled = Forced to install Notes
Paranoid = Forced to sit next to Notes Server all day waiting for the memory leak to take over
Late = Due to sleep deprevation from having to go in at 2am to reboot the Notes Server
Argumentative = Caught whispering "Exchange, bitches." under his breath
Poor Performer = Changed Cert ID password to "Fuck Notes"

Whats not to understand?

Re:Yeah, so? (4, Funny)

eebly (7752) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929542)

Disgruntled = Forced to install Exchange.
Paranoid = Forced to recheck Exchange database
Late = Had to stay up all night while Exchange tested databases
Argumentative = Caught whispering 'Postfix, bitches'
Poor Performer = Changed Exchange password to 'kill me now'

What's not to understand?

(I've never worked with Notes, so it could be as bad as you say, but I've worked with Exchange 2K and 2K3, and yup, it's painful).

Work with both, then post (4, Insightful)

LibertineR (591918) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929566)

If you ever worked with Notes, you would thank Microsoft everyday for Exchange.

Re:Work with both, then post (1)

guruevi (827432) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929738)

Yeah, but once you converted to Exchange you wished you could still choose your vendor and switch back to Notes

Re:Work with both, then post (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929812)

Yep, I spent 3 months working with Notes, and it seemed like an eternity. Great idea, amazingly bad execution.

Re:Work with both, then post (1)

Eevee (535658) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929910)

Those who think Postfix is a suitable replacement for Exchange don't understand the power of Exchange. Those who think Exchange is a suitable replacement for Notes don't understand the power of Notes.

Re:Work with both, then post (4, Funny)

LibertineR (591918) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929950)

Notes: The only application for which there is not enough RAM on Planet Earth.

Re:Yeah, so? (2, Funny)

davecarlotub (835831) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929594)

Executive VP: My Lotus Notes is slow
Me: You have a 16 gigabyte mail file with 20,000 unread messages in your inbox and 100+ folders
Executive VP: What's a gigabyte?

All day, everyday

Re:Yeah, so? (2, Informative)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929808)

Do you stick to stating specific technical details, or do you sometimes point out that it is running as fast as it is going to run on the systems you have with that volume of information? Sometimes the obvious...isn't; if he isn't making the connection and you aren't providing it...

Re:Yeah, so? (2, Funny)

Architect_sasyr (938685) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929608)

Disgruntled = Forced to use Exchange
Paranoid = Afraid Someone will find out about said exchange
Late = Lack of sleep due to World Of Warcraft / Late night programming session
Argumentative = "We don't need a new gazillion dollar server"
Poor Performer = Did 30 jobs in a week and missed the KPI level by 1 as each job was bigger than the beancounters.

I would have thought these were the traits of a GOOD sysadmin...

duh (1)

dragin33 (529413) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929510)

Um, wow.. These people get paid for doing what? I could have told you that for a cheese steak.

Of course, the flip side (3, Informative)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929520)

The flip side is that the fastest way for management to make a worker into someone who's disgruntled, paranoid, shows up late, argues all the time and performs poorly is to treat them like a potential problem. You're giving people privileged access, either you trust them and thus don't need to worry until after they start showing obvious signs, or you don't trust them in which case why are you giving them privileged access in the first place?

To be honest, I think if you have to worry about abuse of privileged access after termination then you have a more fundamental problem that no access-management system will solve. After all, if you can't trust someone to behave professionally after you've given them their 2-weeks' notice then what makes you think you can trust them to behave professionally before that?

Re:Of course, the flip side (0)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929650)

Holy crap. do you realize how easy it is to have built in time bombs? if you are a network admin have all your apps check to see if your login is valid or locked. (Ok dangerous for accidental triggering) or times to look for a dead man switch to get thrown. then start sick crap like stopping all backups of the finance databases and then 3 months later, scramble all the numbers. easy to do and apply as a innocent looking service that is needed.

Or more sinister. find all .doc files and insert the word "fucker" randomly preferrably putting your bosses name befoer it with a "is a" between them. more fun? plant the bomb on his PC and have it start firing off profanity or scripted I quit messages to department heads.

all of this stuff is incredibly easy for someone that has skills above a MCSE and if you are disgruntled enough you probably will plan things ahead of time.

a Good IT/security admin thinks of this stuff and looks for it or demands code reviews of every custom app that goes on the servers.... problem is 99% of all It departments are not run that way, so it's easy to slip things in as most in the IT department need admin access or the users access at one time or another.

Re:Of course, the flip side (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17930156)

[insert big bureaucracy here] doesn't hire people who; are disgruntled, paranoid, generally late, argue with colleagues, and generally perform poorly.

[insert big bureaucracy here] hires young enthusiastic people and turns them into people who are disgruntled, paranoid, generally late, argue with colleagues, and generally perform poorly.

then punishes them for bad attitude

been there
had that happen to me

Yeah but... (2, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929546)

The openly disgruntled will cause trouble when they leave.

the quiet meek ones will come in with automatic weapons and start "cutting expenses" when they leave.

I fear the quiet meek ones. They frighten me.

had to open your mouth (1)

chrwei (771689) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930216)

shush you, you'll blow my cover

Cyber-Ark? (1)

Voice of Meson (892271) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929574)

From TFA

I'd suggest that you start from the basis that your IT staff are the biggest risk to your organization's security, and if anyone of them disputes this, remember that arguing with colleagues was one of the clear signs of an impending attack.
A little heavy handed perhaps? I agree that high level access should be treated with the same level of respect as master keys or safe passwords, and any decent company should have processes in place to protect themselves. But this guy sounds like a power tripping fuckwit. Tell a subset of your workers they the greatest risk to the security of the company then monitor them to see which ones react badly?

As for the actual article, take out the IT parts and it's just common sense. Maybe keep an eye on the shabby looking guy in the corner mutterring about how he's going to "show them all one day".

IT workers et al. (1)

mkiwi (585287) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929576)

I've noticed a similar trend at places where I've worked. Most IT people are good, kind people who try to motivate their users and make positive change.

There are some IT people, mostly those who are uncertain about their job, their skills, or their life in general. This is not simply symptomatic of IT- this happens everywhere in life.

No matter where you are, there are people with anxiety and mood disorders as well as a lot of depression. These people must be cared for carefully.

Most of them just need positive reinforcement that what they are doing is good work. That improves their moods, and in turn they work harder. If management does not give any positive feedback at all and takes a laissez-faire attutude toward any employee you are going to run into problems.

Sometimes it is just the person, too. Each case is different, but the majority of workers just need to hear a few positive comments and they are more efficient.

Re:IT workers et al. (1)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929868)

Absolutely. When I hear encouraging, positive comments it makes me feel wanted and loyal. I actually do not mind working longer and harder knowing that my efforts are noticed and recognized. This happens too infrequently in the workplace. In fact, just the opposite happens. Mostly, the only feedback you here is when you "fucked-up." I know that if all I hear is how bad a worker I am, I would grow to resent the employer and the situation. But, I have enough moral fortitude not to take the resentment into the realm of overt sabotage. I notice that, in negative reinforcement situations, employees do not generally work well together as a team and are quick to want to find a way to blame someone else or scapegoat. This scapegoating, in some organizations, happens shamelessly. I think simple, honest, and genuine recognition would drastically reduce the incidents of going postal, if not eliminate them altogether.

Re:IT workers et al. (1)

DeathToBill (601486) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929874)

And, sometimes, this guy turns up [iinet.net.au] .

Re:IT workers et al. (1)

midnighttoadstool (703941) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930078)

That's all nice and feminine, but patting someone on the head mechanically is liable to having your hand bitten off. What many of us want is to be valued and no amount of 'praise' substitutes for that.

Further no one, ultimately, wants to be though of as "working more efficiently", because that reduces us to the level of a machine.

Note to self (1)

qzulla (600807) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929580)

Macleod concluded: "So as far as doing the right thing, I'd suggest that you start from the basis that your IT staff are the biggest risk to your organization's security, and if anyone of them disputes this, remember that arguing with colleagues was one of the clear signs of an impending attack.

You know the rest.

Geez. I argue with my boss on a regular basis. I cannot count the times I have argued with a coworker over this or that. We do it constantly. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose.

There other signs but arguing is not one of them.

Note to self: update resume...

Crap. There goes that ten years.

qz

It's not limited to IT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17929586)

The place where I work was severely damaged by a psycho nutcase who soured our relationship with our best customers. I like to think it was deliberate sabatoge but maybe the guy just couldn't help himself. In any event, there are precious few positions where someone can't do serious damage to the company. I used to think our purchasing agent was deliberately stupid. I once put in an order for five gallons of de-ionized water from the local soft water place. The purchasing agent got de-ionized water all right; scientific grade at $200/liter. I wonder how much money this person cost the organization over her thirty some years of employment. She'll probably go to the grave laughing about the stuff she pulled on us.

Think of Wally in Dilbert ... now multiply by millions ... the mind boggles.

Thinly veiled ad (4, Insightful)

Knytefall (7348) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929610)

The last few paragraphs of the article are more-or-less unedited PR hype from a vendor:

"According to security management vendor Calum Macleod of Cyber-Ark..Macleod's solution is password management....'If privileged password management is not on your shopping list in 2007 it may already be too late.'"

This is preceded with a 'people who say you shouldn't buy my product may already be criminals':

"'if anyone of them disputes this, remember that arguing with colleagues was one of the clear signs of an impending attack.'"

I can't believe this ran! This reporter was shockingly lazy.

Re:Thinly veiled ad (1)

feepness (543479) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930154)

I can't believe this ran! This reporter was shockingly lazy.

That's it! We've found one! Turn in your keycard and know that we are changing all passwords!

Best to stay on top of any unrest... (4, Interesting)

djupedal (584558) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929618)

I believe we've all seen this recent memo from HR, to all IT department staff: 'Floggings will continue until morale improves!'

But seriously, you could swap IT for any discipline and come up with the same bullet-point: "Study Shows Link Between Grounds Keeping Sabotage, Work Behavior" - so what's the point? Just because I hold your entire work history in my shaky, sweaty hands doesn't mean I will automatically go postal and cause trouble for you and your unborn grandchildren. A cafeteria worker can spit in the soup. A parking security wanker can key your new Astro. A disgruntled department head can arbitrarily black mark a borderline performance appraisal.

Screw this generalized dust-kickup of a 'study' and go talk to anyone you think just needs someone to listen. If they tell you they "can't talk...busy...voices said time to clean my guns", then you might want to restrict their security access for a while. Otherwise, treat them like humans and stop watching for signs the sky is getting ready to fall.

Re:Best to stay on top of any unrest... (1)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929794)

Nice! Thank you for echoing my thoughts exactly!

Seen this happen (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17929620)

Fired employee disabled an error reporting module for a particular billing program. Finally noticed a couple years later ... figure the total missed revenue was a little over 2 million. CIO swept it under the rug out of embarrassment.

Don't go about it the wrong way (1)

toadlife (301863) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929634)

From TFA...

"Macleod concluded: "So as far as doing the right thing, I'd suggest that you start from the basis that your IT staff are the biggest risk to your organization's security, and if anyone of them disputes this, remember that arguing with colleagues was one of the clear signs of an impending attack."
Wow.

It seems a defensive reaction to being indirectly labeled a crook by your boss would be natural, even for honest employees. How about skipping the threatening rhetoric, and just implementing an automated password management policy. If your IT folks are worth their salt, they'll "get it" without having to be called criminals. If you skip the indirect threats, and they argue against an automated password management policy alone, then maybe you should worry.

Oh really? (4, Funny)

EXMSFT (935404) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929640)

And I said, I don't care if they lay me off either, because I told, I told Bill that if they move my desk one more time, then, then I'm, I'm quitting, I'm going to quit. And, and I told Don too, because they've moved my desk four times already this year, and I used to be over by the window, and I could see the squirrels, and they were married, but then, they switched from the Swingline to the Boston stapler, but I kept my Swingline stapler because it didn't bind up as much, and I kept the staples for the Swingline stapler and it's not okay because if they take my stapler then I'll set the building on fire...

Re:Oh really? (1)

karnal (22275) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929840)

and I could see the squirrels, and they were married,

Either you cut-and-pasted, or you have a really weird sense of squirrel "happiness."

useless (4, Insightful)

oohshiny (998054) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929714)

According to the research, 86 percent of those who committed cybercrimes held ...

That's nearly useless information. By analogy, nearly 100% of rapists are male, yet very few males are actually rapists.

in other words (1)

capoccia (312092) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929760)

poorly performing people get stuck in unsatisfying and frustrating jobs, while the strong performers find satisfying and fufilling ones.

what about work treatment? (4, Insightful)

bzipitidoo (647217) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929782)

What about workers who are routinely abused? Workers who are pushed to make themselves desperate (financially desperate, usually) to keep the job so they can be treated like slaves, and who are then forced to work long hours for no extra pay because they're salaried, constantly threatened with termination, blamed for problems but denied power to deal with them, and so on, did the study account for that? Doesn't look like the study did. Study talks about "work behavior" but not "work treatment", as if companies have no effect on whether a worker would want to sabotage something.

Ignoring signs-- signs such as a person coming in late who had always come in on time in the past-- is a sure invitation to trouble. People who feel they can't communicate one way will communicate another way. Maybe before concluding that someone who is causing "trouble" better be escorted off the premises in handcuffs before they can do real damage, management ought to try a few other things first. Like, listen in such a way that workers feel they can speak openly. And removing the temptation. If a nuclear missile could be launched with the push of one button, it probably would've happened. Good thing the missiles require several keys, codes, and such like.

This study strikes me as narrow.

Ah, wrongfully included in generalisation. again. (1)

rivj0r (815503) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929792)

IT worker - check disgruntled - check paranoid - not so much generally show up late - double check argue with colleagues - when neccesary generally perform poorly - check Sabotage the IT system? HELL NO! Theres no way I'd work against a system I've put so much bloody time into getting damn near perfect. Thats my reputation right there, and my reference, and the only thing I can point at and go "I built that." The only people that would sabotage a system they were responsible require one further classification; Fucking stupid - check.

Smart enough? (4, Insightful)

alshithead (981606) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929802)

Those who are capable of wrecking systems thoroughly are usually also smart enough not to show signs that they are willing to do so... The ones who grumble and complain need to be shown the door before they wreak havoc or, pacify them. It's the non-complainers you need to make sure are really happy because if they're not...you could be screwed.

Pull the plug with a smile (1)

gd23ka (324741) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929866)

This one deserves a +5 funny I wish there were a way to mod the articles themselves.

No really, what immensely priceless wisdom is impart4ed here. People who sabotage (IT) systems are disaffected
and hate your guts. But tBig Brother and Landru be thanked there is a real simple way to detect these terrorists.
They don't borg-smile when they pass you in the hall.

People will just have to learn to pull the plug with a smile.

duh? (1)

wedgiesaurus (815742) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929884)

As opposed to the nice, kind, helpful ones? This is why studies like these strike me as silly. Of course the disgruntled employee is the saboteur!

Nice piece. Here the last line they somehow forgot (1)

gd23ka (324741) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929896)

--"And automate the whole process. If privileged password management is not on your shopping list in 2007 it may already be too late.""

All that is missing in this FUD piece is of course the obligtory
"We happen to have a solution, btw, give us a call."

Well Duh, captain Obvious. (1)

lindseyp (988332) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930008)

Next we'll be hearing that workers who sabotage a company's reputation with its clients are invariably salespeople, or that workers who embezzle money are invariably accountants or working in financial control.

Flip it around... (1)

jimmiejaz (264607) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930046)

FTA: "86 percent of those who committed cybercrimes held technical positions and 90 percent had system administrator or privileged system access."

Ever think maybe us S.A's are just naturally vindictive, evil bastards that just don't give a rats ass, hell, we know the in/outs of every system we touch, have the power to do as we please and have no one notice.

Paranoid? Hell yeah, just as the company has to trust us with the systems, we have to trust them with our personal info on their laptops, on the front seat of the car while they're in the bar for the 5 hour lunch.

Bottom line, you get what you give, end of story.

heh (1)

ezwip (974076) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930124)

Workers who sabotage corporate systems are almost always disgruntled, paranoid, generally show up on time, harassed by colleagues, and perform tasks that resemble in no way their job description. In fact many of them should be on the IT team, have a better grasp of security, and for some reason get looked over at every opportunity and grow tired of working in the mail room. Results of the study show that brow beating, poor raises, and working with people who don't work but have the title of boss leads to pissed off workers that will backdoor your comps, piss in your plants, and slash your car tires.

As opposed to the loading dock guys? (1)

gelfling (6534) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930134)

Of course the IT guys are going to be the ones breaking the IT systems. It's axiomatic.

Double agents are the best agents (1)

gelfling (6534) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930172)

Typically your moles are the best intelligence agents you have. That's why it's hard to find them.

Checklist... (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930192)


"almost always IT workers who are disgruntled, paranoid, generally show up late, argue with colleagues, and generally perform poorly."

Disgruntled = Management listens to outside consultants and does random IT stuff instead of listening to our advice? Check.
Paranoid = Teaching outside consultants every detail about my job. Check.
Late = Stay up late playing computer games. Check.
Argumentative = Learned about this one years ago. No Check. WHEW!
Poor Performer = Sarbanes Oxley procedures in place lowering performance by 75%. Massive audits for 1 line changes. Check.

Solution... (1, Redundant)

ebers (816511) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930222)

Sometimes the best solution to morale problems is just to fire all of the unhappy people. -E.L. Kersten http://www.despair.com/demotivation.html [despair.com]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>